Wednesday, 7 September 2011

BREASTFEEDING IS LOVEMAKING BETWEEN MOTHER & CHILD




RASA VON WERDER SAYS SEE MY BOOK “BREASTFEEDING IS LOVEMAKING BETWEEN MOTHER & CHILD” ON LULU.COM:

THIS BOOK IS MOSTLY THE RESEARCH OF DR. JAMES W. PRESCOTT & DR. DALE GLAEBACH.  IT HAS INCREDIBLE INSIGHTS.  DR. MERCOLA AGREES

New Research Proves Mothers Who do this Bond Better With Their Children

Posted By Dr. Mercola |






Mother and Baby BondingBreast milk may be tremendously important to mother-baby bonding. New research shows that breast-feeding mothers are more likely than formula-feeding moms to bond with their infants, and also demonstrate stronger brain responses when they hear their baby cry.
Researchers divided a group of new mothers into breast-feeders and formula-feeders, and performed functional MRIs (fMRI) on them about a month after their babies were born. Although all the mothers' brains became more active when listening to their own baby's cry, the changes in the breast-feeding mothers' relevant brain regions were much greater.
Time Magazine reports:
“The study, which the researchers say is the first to link brain activity with maternal behavior, is likely to reinforce the convictions of breast-feeding mothers that they're doing right by their babies”.


Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Follow Dr. Mercola on TwitterFollow Dr. Mercola on Facebook

Breastfeeding is the least expensive and most effective way to improve and protect your baby's health, and now a first-of-its-kind study also suggests that breastfeeding may have a direct impact on a mother's brain, promoting 'maternal behavior' and increasing emotional bonding between the mother and child.
This is not altogether surprising, since breastfeeding promotes the increased release of oxytocin, also known as the "love hormone," or "bonding hormone."

Breastfeeding Alters Your Brain Activity

Still, it's interesting to note the changes in brain activity observed in breastfeeding moms. The results were published in the April issue of the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and the researchers suggest that breastfeeding may be "the secret" that strengthens mother-baby bonding.
The Yale University researchers divided mothers into two groups:

  1. Nine breast-feeders
  2. Eight formula-feeders
About one month after giving birth, the mothers underwent functional MRIs (fMRI) while listening to audio clips of their own baby, and an unknown baby, crying. While all of the mothers' brains became more active when listening to their own baby's cry, the breastfeeding mothers displayed more significant activity in relevant brain regions.
Whether or not this is directly related to increased oxytocin levels, or whether some other mechanism is at play is still unknown. But it can be worthwhile to take this information into consideration if you're still on the fence about breastfeeding, or perhaps if you're concerned about being able to successfully bond with your baby whether breastfeeding, or not.

The Many Health Benefits of Breastfeeding—For Both Mother and Child

Aside from promoting stronger emotional bonding, breastfeeding offers a long list of life-long health benefits, not just for the child, but for the mother as well.
Studies have shown that breastfed babies gain added protection against:
Eczema
Respiratory- and other types of infections
Heart disease
Obesity
Type 1 and type 2 diabetes
Bowel diseases such as Crohn's disease
Asthma and allergies
Necrotizing enterocolitis among premature babies

Breastfeeding can also help promote cognitive development in your child. It also benefits the mother in several ways, including:
Enhancing maternal behavior through increased oxytocin release
"Natural birth control," as it suppresses ovulation, making pregnancy less likely
Diabetic mothers typically require less insulin
Easier weight loss
Reducing your risk of endometrial-, ovarian- and breast cancers
Reducing your risk of metabolic syndrome

Breastfeeding More Successful with Proper Maternity Leave

A recent article in Medical News Today brings up a related and important point in terms of what can help make breastfeeding more successful, and that is extended maternity leave.
Ideally, you'll want to breastfeed your baby for at least six months, but this can be tricky if you have to return to work after a few short weeks of maternity leave.  An article in the journal Pediatrics, published last month, points out that national breastfeeding rates in the US still fall short of the "Healthy People 2010" goals.
Of the women who had at least 13 weeks maternity leave, just over 74 percent started breastfeeding. Meanwhile, the breastfeeding rate dropped by nearly 10 percent for women who only had one to six weeks maternity leave. Those with longer maternity leave also had the highest ratio of babies still breastfeeding at three months of age.
The authors concluded:
"If new mothers delay their time of return to work, then duration of breastfeeding among US mothers may lengthen."
One answer to increase breastfeeding rates would be to extend the Family and Medical Leave Act, which is the recommendation of the study's authors. American women are currently entitled to 12 weeks unpaid leave after giving birth, according to the US Family Leave and Medical Act. However, this federal law does not apply to many women who work for small businesses with fewer than 50 employees, as they only have to offer this benefit to women who have worked a minimum of 1,250 hours in the preceding 12 months.
For comparison:
  • Swedish mothers get 16 months maternity leave at 80 percent pay
  • Japanese women receive 14 weeks leave at 66 percent pay, and
  • Canadians get 17 weeks off at 55 percent of their regular salary
Since American law does not require the employer to pay a percentage of a woman's salary during maternity leave, taking extra time off is a financial impossibility for many families. While there's no easy answer to that dilemma (barring legislative changes), if you can afford it, it may be well worth considering...

Is Home Birth Right for You?

In related news, home births are now at the highest level since 1990, and this could be a beneficial trend to help increase breastfeeding rates.
While there are multiple reasons for this trend, I see it as a sign that more families are now starting to take back control of their health, and that of their offspring. Patient-doctor trust is wearing thin these days, as conflicts of interest are becoming increasingly obvious, and more people are looking for low intervention birthing options. Many parents also want to return to a more soothing and natural way of greeting their child into the world, and opt to avoid immediate vaccinations.
As an added benefit, home births are also less expensive, costing about one-third of a hospital birth.
According to a recently published study in the journal Birth, the number of American women delivering their babies at home increased by a healthy 20 percent between 2004 and 2008.   The primary thrust behind this change is attributed to white women increasingly opting to give birth at home—Caucasians accounted for 94 percent of the increase.

Which is Safer—Home Births or Hospital Births?

There's much controversy over this issue. Some studies have concluded that hospital births are safer, and many women are still dissuaded by their obstetricians to pursue a home birth.
But is all that worry warranted?
An interesting review of the evidence was published back in 2003, which shatters many of these concerns.
Published in the journal Birth, the authors criticize the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for sensationalizing negative studies; one in particular alleged to have found that home births doubled the risk of newborn death. However, upon more careful review, the study in question contained "numerous flaws and limitations," and "could not be used" to make an informed decision about whether or not women should be discouraged from opting for home birth.
The review reads, in part:
"... The authors noted "controversy" in literature concerning the safety of home deliveries, but cited only 4 studies that they claim support their findings of increased risk of neonatal mortality and adverse outcomes. They failed to mention or discuss findings from the bulk of the recent national and international literature, which concluded that planned home birth is a safe and reasonable option. More importantly, they misrepresented the literature that they did cite. Even a cursory examination of those studies revealed that two of them included both low- and high-risk women in the home birth group.
... [R]eviewing controlled trials in Europe, Springer and Van Weel concluded that planned home birth is "safe in selected women and with adequate infrastructure and support". In the United States, Murphy and Fullerton concluded, "home birth can be accomplished with good outcomes under the care of qualified practitioners and within a system that facilitates transfer to hospital care when necessary."
The authors also point out that:
"... Recently, a policy statement by the Governing Council of the American Public Health Association concluded that "Births to healthy mothers, who are not considered at medical risk after comprehensive screening by trained professionals, can occur safely in various settings, including out-of-hospital birth centers and homes."
High-risk pregnancies that are typically not good candidates for home birth include women who are:
  • Over the age of 40
  • Obese (weighing over 300 pounds)
  • Hypertensive
  • Diabetic
The review concludes with the following advice:
"... Each year in the United States more than 25,000 women choose to deliver at home. It is time for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to recognize that the evidence calls for improvements in the provision of out-of-hospital services, rather than their elimination, and to provide leadership in ensuring adequate infrastructure and support for those women choosing home birth.
 It is time for national funding groups, government health agencies, and editorials to support investigations on the models of care that produce optimal outcomes across birth sites."
And:
"... When the findings of a new study disagree with copious evidence from high-quality trials, the study methodology and interpretation must be examined closely."
Hopefully this level-headed review of the evidence will help put your mind at ease. Because while there's no way to completely eliminate all risk inherent with childbirth, there's actually very little evidence to indicate that giving birth at home with a well-qualified birthing professional is riskier than giving birth in a hospital, as long as you're in good health, and have a normal, low-risk pregnancy. On the contrary, it may actually be safer. And the added benefits can be great. 
 

Help for Moms Who Can't Breastfeed

Ideally you should strive to breastfeed your baby exclusively for the first six months, and only then begin to supplement with solid foods (while still continuing to breastfeed as well). If you're having trouble breastfeeding, Le Leche League is a terrific resource to contact for help.
However, if you're unable to breastfeed for any reason, please steer clear of commercial infant formulas as much as possible and definitely avoid all soy infant formula. The next best alternative to breast milk is to make a healthy homemade infant formula using this recipe. 


Kellie Everts, (Showbiz name of Rasa Von Werder)


HOW TO IMPROVE INFANT FORMULA
Infant Formula Fortification Protocol
Posted By Dr. Mercola |

A mother's breast milk is nature's perfect and complete foodfor babies and can't even come close to being reproduced. With so many substances known to be present in breastmilk, but unable to be replicated inbreastmilk substitutes (formula), plus all of the as-yet unidentified constituents,it should come as no great surprise that children today are suffering from a vastmyriad of illnesses and disorders.

The human brain is infinitely more sophisticated than the world's fastest computer,yet many people naively think that this wondrous organ can be perfectly constructedwithout any regard to the "raw materials" required. Building a properlyfunctioning brain requires the right materials, just as building a computer would.Imagine trying to build a computer from scratch, without any microchips. Or tryingto build a house without any lumber, bricks, steel, or other materials.

However, while there is no way to create a formula equal to breastmilk, there aresteps that can be taken to improve somewhat upon the standard formulas that areavailable.

One of the nutritional areas that are woefully inadequate with formulas is in regardsto their fatty acid content. With all of the anti-fat propaganda going onthese days, most people don't realize the critical importance of fat, especiallywith infants. Not only is the quantity important, but the quality and breakdownof the types of fat supplied as well.

After all, the brain is 60% lipid (fat). Ofthis fat, approximately 12 % is arachidonic acid (AA) and 17% is docosahexaenoicacid ( DHA ).

Many people have heard about the benefits and importance of the omega-3 fatty acidsDHA and EPA, found primarily in fish.

The importance of DHA in the infants' diet recently prompted many countries (notincluding the US ) to allow formula producers to fortify their products with DHA ,as well as AA. Currently, DHA /AA enhanced formulas are available, although not mandatory,throughout most of Europe .

Unfortunately, this small step still does not provide infants the nutrients theydesperately require, due to several problems.

First of all, the DHA added to the formulas,obtained from microalgae, is highly oxidized (approximately 30%)

Additionally, DHA and AA are not the sole fat constituents of breastmilk.Fortifying with them is a step in the right direction, but still leaves out plentyof important substances.

In an effort to help people provide their infants with the best possible nutrition,we often instruct mothers to "create" fortified formulas. But of coursewe insist that mothers breastfeed if at all possible or even obtain fresh breastmilkfrom a lactating friend or relative, if they have adopted a baby, or can't breastfeedfor some reason.

For the infant to remain as healthy as possible, he must obtain a proper balanceof all the essential fats, which is difficult to impossible, especiallywhen you are changing mother nature and trying to create a formula.

However, below is a basic fat fortification protocol, which attempts to come asclose as possible to "the real thing":

    *

      Kiddie Krill - one per day
    *

      Organic egg yolk - 1 yolk daily added at four months of age
    *

      Organic cream ideally non-pasteurized and non-homogenized -- If you are unable to find a local dairy farmer who will cooperate with you please try this link: http://www.realmilk.com/where.html.
    *

      Omega Nutrition pure sesame, walnut, safflower, sunflower, oils (rotate with above) - 1 teaspoon daily
    *

      One teaspoon high quality coconut oil. This oil needs to be heated to 76 degrees to become a liquid.

Base oils as safflower, sunflower and sesame can be blended into the formula.

It is important, if not breastfeeding, to use one of the commercially availableformulas as a "base" from which to fortify the infant's diet. Althoughsome people might be tempted to create their own homemade formula, I don't recommendthis approach, as it is just too dangerous that something could be inadvertentlyleft out or added in too great a quantity. A mistake could cost an infant his life.

Nutramagen or Alimentumcan be used as a base infant formula and 'doctored up' with nutritional perks. Bothof these formulas are acceptable in regard to the 'allergic' aspect, and are theones usually used when children cannot tolerate anything. Of course, they are alsothe most expensive.

FORTIFIED COMMERCIAL FORMULA
Makes about 35 ounces

This stopgap formula can be used in emergencies, or when the ingredients for homemadeformula are unavailable.

    * 1 cup Mead Johnson low-iron, milk-based powdered formula, Nutramigen or Alimentum are best and better tolerated but are more expensive
    * 29 ounces filtered water (3 5/8 cups)
    * 1 large egg yolk from an organic egg uncooked. Do not give to infant unless older than four months of age
    * 1 Kiddie Krill

Place all ingredients in a blender or food processor and blend thoroughly. Place6-8 ounces in a very clean glass bottle. (Store the rest in a very clean glass jarin the refrigerator for the next feedings.) Attach a clean nipple to the bottleand set in a pan of simmering water until formula is warm but not hot to the touch,shake well and feed to baby. (Never heat formula in a microwave oven!)

If your baby is premature, one additional area of fortification is in the area offree amino acids, most notably taurine. This nutrient is also critical for infant development and is foundin human milk but not in cow's milk. Although many formulas add some taurine, ithas been shown that formula-fed infants have lower levels of taurine in their bloodthan breastfed infants do, even when the formula has added taurine.

Contrary to the advice given by some, soy milk, almond milk,or carrot juice, even if organic and homemade, are most definitely NOT ACCEPTABLESUBSTITUTES FOR BREASTMILK, or even for formula.

For those mothers who are breastfeeding, it is important to realize that the essentialfatty acid content of her breast milk coincides with what she eats. Therefore, herdiet is very important for the health of her baby. One of the most important thingsthat a breastfed mother can do is to avoid foods containing trans fats, such asmargarine and anything with hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils.

While one can't guarantee that taking the steps outlined above will completely eliminateproblems such as ADD/ADHD and other behavioral problems, developmental problems,autism, visual difficulties, and others, I believe it is a strong possibility thatit could help to reduce their incidence, although it is important to always rememberthat BREAST IS BEST.

Please recognize that soy formula is an unmitigated disaster for infants and should never be used.Fact is, it can harm your baby, as it is high in:

    * Manganese
    * Aluminum
    * Phytoestrogens that will harm your baby

(For more information please read the links below.)

Alternatively a raw milk formula can be made:

MILK-BASED FORMULA From Weston Price Foundation
Makes 36 ounces

Our milk-based formula takes account of the fact that human milk is richer in whey,lactose, vitamin C, niacin, and long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids comparedto cow’s milk but leaner in casein (milk protein). Use only truly expeller-expressedoils in the formula recipes, otherwise they may lack vitamin E.

The ideal milk for baby, if he cannot be breastfed, is clean, whole raw milk fromgoats. If goats are not available, them milk from cows certified free of disease,that feed on green pasture would be a second best choice. For sources of good qualitymilk, see www.realmilk.comor contact a local chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

If the only choice available to you is commercial milk, choose whole milk, preferablyorganic and unhomogenized, and culture it with a piima or Kefir Culture to restore enzymes.

2 cups whole milk, raw (non-pasteurized) milk from pasture-fed cows
1/4 cup homemade liquid whey (See recipe for whey)
4 tablespoons lactose (available from The Apothecary 301-530-1112)
1 teaspoon bifidobacterium infantis
2 Kiddie Krill
1 teaspoon expeller-expressed sunflower oil
1 teaspoon extra virgin olive oil
2 teaspoons coconut oil
2 teaspoons Frontier brand nutritional yeast flakes
2 teaspoons gelatin
1 7/8 cups filtered water
1/4 teaspoon acerola powder

Add gelatin to water and heat gently until gelatin is dissolved. Place all ingredientsin a very clean glass or stainless steel container and mix well. To serve, pour6 to 8 ounces into a very clean glass bottle, attach nipple and set in a pan ofsimmering water. Heat until warm but not hot to the touch, shake bottle well andfeed baby. (Never, never heat formula in a microwave oven!) Note: If you are usingthe Lact-Aid, mix all ingredients well in a blender.)

Variation: Goat Milk Formula

Although goat milk is rich in fat, it must be used with caution in infant feedingas it lacks folic acid and is low in vitamin B12, both of which are essential tothe growth and development of the infant. Inclusion of nutritional yeast to providefolic acid is essential. To compensate for low levels of vitamin B12, add 2 teaspoonsfrozen organic raw chicken liver, finely grated to the batch of formula. Be sureto begin egg-yolk feeding at four months.

FROM DR. MERCOLA


 


FROM DR. MERCOLA:  THE EVIL MEN ARE DOING TO US IN MEDICAL SCIENCE– THEY ARE INOCULATING OUR INFANTS WITH POISONS. 
Can we not see THIS IS PATRIARCHY?  The RULE OF THE MAN -  He is a KILLER!
 
Former drug company scientist Helen Ratajczak recently created a firestorm of debate from all sides of the vaccine-autism issue when she published her comprehensive review of autism research. This is a massively important study, for more than one reason. One element brought to light that has managed to stay well below the radar is the use of aborted embryonic cells in vaccine production.

CBS News recently reported:

    “Ratajczak reports that about the same time vaccine makers took most thimerosal out of most vaccines (with the exception of flu shots which still widely contain thimerosal), they began making some vaccines using human tissue.

    Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23 vaccines. She discusses the increase in autism incidences corresponding with the introduction of human DNA to MMR vaccine, and suggests the two could be linked.”

 Dr. Mercola's Comments:
           
Follow Dr. Mercola on Twitter Follow Dr. Mercola on Facebook

    Former drug company scientist Helen Ratajczak recently created a firestorm of debate from all sides of the vaccine-autism issue when she published her comprehensive review of autism research. However, her 79-page review contains one detail that could easily go unnoticed—five words that reveal one of the most shocking secrets Big Pharma has ever kept from you.

        "…Grown in human fetal tissue."

        "An additional increased spike in incidence of autism occurred in 1995 when the chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue."

    If you are struggling to recall how you could have missed this important fact when signing your vaccine consent form, it wasn't your error—because it wasn't disclosed on any consent form. Most people are unaware that human cell cultures derived from aborted human fetuses have been used extensively in vaccine production for decades. And vaccine makers are happy that most of the public has remained ignorant of this fact, as awareness of it could blow up in their faces.

    Setting aside, for the moment, unknown long-term health consequences of DNA contamination and religious beliefs about use of aborted fetal tissues—the ethics of nondisclosure are reprehensible. Drug companies and vaccine policy-makers should not be allowed to decide whether or not to share this information with you. This is information you should have received PRIOR to making a choice about whether or not to vaccinate.

Which Vaccines Might Be Produced Using Aborted Fetal Cell Lines?

    Chicken pox vaccine is not the only vaccine manufactured in this way. According to Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI), the following 24 vaccines are produced using cells from aborted fetuses and/or contain DNA , proteins, or related cellular debris from cell cultures derived from aborted human fetuses:

Polio    PolioVax, Pentacel, DT Polio Absorbed, Quadracel (Sanofi)
Measles, Mumps, Rubella         MMR II, Meruvax II, MRVax, Biovax, ProQuad, MMR -V (Merck)
Priorix, Erolalix (GlaxoSmithKline)
Varicella (Chickenpox and Shingles)     Varivax, ProQuad, MMR -V, Zostavax (Merck)
Varilix (GlaxoSmithKline)
Hepatitis A       Vaqta (Merck)
Havrix, Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKine)
Avaxim, Vivaxim (Sanofi)
Epaxal (Crucell/Berna)
Rabies Imovax (Sanofi)

    SCPI also lists cosmetics that are similarly produced from aborted fetal tissue cell lines, which I'll  discuss a bit later.

The Sordid History of Viral Vaccines

    There are two primary cell cultures that have been growing in labs for more than 35 years and have been used to prepare hundreds of millions of doses of vaccines:

       1. WI-38: Originating in the U.S. in 1961, this line came from the lung cells of an intentionally aborted female human fetus of 3 months gestation.
       2. MRC-5: Originating in the U.K. in 1966, this line was derived from the lung cells of an intentionally aborted 14-week-old male human fetus.

    The National Network for Immunization Information (NNII) has an article on their website explaining the rationale for using human fetal cells, and the history of how they've been used in vaccine production. The article states that these fetuses were not aborted for the purpose of vaccine research or vaccine production, nor did the cell biologists who created the cultures perform the abortions themselves.

    The NNII article explains some of the difficulties involved in producing "biological medications," especially when it comes to growing viruses:

        "It is far more complex to manufacture biological medications (for example, vaccines, antibodies) than it is to produce chemical medications (for example, penicillin or aspirin). In addition, certain vaccines are more complex to make than others. The bacteria that go into bacterial vaccines can be grown in simple laboratory cultures. In contrast, the growth of viruses requires living cells.

        Viruses cannot reproduce on their own. They require a living host in which to grow, such as chicken embryos, and cells from animals that are grown in culture. Vaccine manufacturers currently have few options for viral culture, because of valid pharmaceutical reasons and because of human safety concerns. For example, varicella (chickenpox) virus does not grow well in most cells derived from species other than humans. Also, human cells are preferred because cells derived from animal organs sometimes may carry animal viruses that could harm people."

    It may be more difficult, but it IS possible to prepare viral vaccines without the use of human or animal cells, as today's hepatitis B vaccine proves. The current version of the hepatitis B vaccine, used in the U.S. since 1986, uses yeast cells. Other virus vaccines use chicken embryos or monkey kidney cell lines.

    So, why don't manufacturers avoid using human cells altogether and instead opt for less controversial methods? I suspect there is little incentive for vaccine manufacturers to develop and test new vaccines when they are already profiting from existing ones. Of course, when the truth becomes widely known about how these vaccines are derived, they may begin seeing their profits plunge and be forced to find new methodology.

One Particularly Egregious Example: Rubella Vaccine

    The rubella virus used in making rubella vaccine was originally derived from tissues from the aborted fetus of a rubella virus-infected mother. Babies born to rubella-infected mothers are at risk for serious birth defects.

    According to Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center :

        "The rubella vaccine currently used in the U.S. and in most countries was developed after an American researcher at the Wistar Institute cultured rubella virus from a fetus aborted because the mother was infected with rubella. This vaccine is called RA 27/3 because the rubella virus was isolated from the 27th aborted fetus sent to the Wistar Institute in the 1964 rubella outbreak. Researchers were unable to culture rubella from the tissues of the first 26 fetuses sent to Wistar, which had been aborted by doctors because the mothers had rubella during pregnancy."

    A recent study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has led to a question of whether there is a  correlation between the abrupt rise in American autism rates with the introduction of fetal cells for use in vaccines (1988). This correlation has prompted researchers to ask the question about how aborted fetal DNA could be causing, or contributing to, the development of autism disorders in children. Thus far, there have been no proposed theories of a mechanism. However, it's a significant correlation that should at least be investigated. If you care about what you put into your body, and into your child's body, and you are outraged by this information, you are not alone.

    How can a person be pro-life and NOT object to the use of these vaccines?

    The impact of the finding that many vaccines are derived from aborted fetal cell lines is potentially enormous, given the great number of people who define themselves as Pro Life. For someone who is Pro Life to discover that a vaccine contains the DNA from aborted fetuses is like a Muslim finding out that a vaccine is derived from pork.

    I would anticipate that many of the people who object to use of aborted fetal tissues for scientific research are going to be shocked and outraged when they learn that their children have been secretly injected with vaccines containing DNA , proteins, or related cellular debris from cell cultures derived from aborted human fetuses.

    This is not a small portion of the population!

    The two largest religious preferences in the U.S. are Catholic and Evangelical, representing 50 percent of the population. And those are not the only two groups who typically share Pro Life views. Given these numbers, you could extrapolate that more than one of every two people receiving vaccines might have opted out of them based on religious beliefs alone, had they been given truthful and complete information about how the vaccines were produced.

    The Catholic Church objects to "formal cooperation" with abortion. However, in terms of its vaccine policy, there are more gray areas than mandates.

    The Vatican states it's your "grave responsibility" to use alternative vaccines when available, i.e., vaccines not derived from aborted human fetuses. It also states that those with moral problems should make conscientious objections. However, the Vatican dictates it's within your right to make your own choice about whether or not to use these vaccines. It takes the position that, in the absence of alternatives, the health of the population as a whole must be considered, stating these vaccines may be utilized "to avoid a serious risk not only for one's own children but also, and more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole—especially for pregnant women."

    For more details on the Catholic Church's stance on this issue, the National Catholic Bioethics Center has a section of their website devoted to Q & A about vaccines derived from fetal cells. If you are Catholic and confused about this issue, you may want to discuss it with your priest.

    If you are Pro Life for religious or other reasons, you owe it to yourself to take a serious look at this information before consenting to be vaccinated.  Catholics and others who share a Pro Life point of view may play an important role in the future of vaccine policy by pressuring the vaccine industry and policymakers to adopt alternative strategies for vaccine research and production.

Shocking Examples of Aborted Fetal Cells Used by the Food and Cosmetic Industry

    With a little further probing, you'll discover the practice of using aborted fetal cell lines extends far beyond vaccines.  Biotech companies are using these cell lines in the research and development of products ranging from soup to anti-aging skin creams. For example, a San Francisco cosmetics company, Neocutis Inc., acknowledges that the key ingredient in its anti-aging skin care line, PSP, was developed from an aborted and donated male fetus. The use of fetal tissue in anti-wrinkle creams certainly crosses moral and ethical boundaries for most consumers, especially when companies choose to HIDE this information. But it gets worse…

    Cells from an aborted fetus may have been used to create flavor enhancers for your soup or soft drink. Yes, you read that right.

    PepsiCo, Kraft Foods, and Nestle are reported to have partnered with a biotech firm called Senomyx, which uses human embryonic kidney cells taken from an electively aborted fetus (HEK 293) in their product testing to find flavors that will positively affect human taste receptors.

    When this news leaked, Campbell soup responded to an outraged public by severing all ties with Senomyx. However, PepsiCo has maintained their relationship with the company, saying the collaboration is necessary for creating low-calorie, tasty products for their consumers.

    REALLY? Must they really use human fetal cells just to make soda pop taste good?

    This makes me wonder how many companies out there are engaging in such practices that we haven't yet discovered. If they've been doing this with vaccines, cosmetics and food, I wonder what else they might be doing.

Take Action Now!

    NVIC has provided a webpage to educate you about vaccine contamination that could harm your health.  There is also a Vaccine Ingredients Calculator on NVIC 's website that helps you learn about what kinds of human protein, DNA , chemicals and other ingredients are in vaccines. NVIC publishes a Vaccine E-newsletter regularly with alerts about vaccine policy and law updates that you can subscribe to, free of charge.

    NVIC supports and defends your right to make fully informed, voluntary decisions regarding pharmaceutical products, including vaccines. This includes the right to know EXACTLY what is in vaccines and how vaccine ingredients could affect your health.

Subscribe to Dr. Mercola’s newsletter!  He puts out valuable information daily!

Rasa says: This is how Patriarchy works



Rasa says:  This is how Patriarchy works, what men do is steal, kill & destroy. David Icke & Alex Jones are the two top conspiracy activists in the world, which means they explain Patriarchy.  What they don’t mention is Matriarchy, that it’s the solution & we are going there.  Two of the main proponents of Matriarchy, William Bond & myself, explain how Matriarchy is different from Patriarchy, how it will work, & how the world moving there right now.  Somehow, David & Alex have missed this, but then, it’s not their Anointing.  So let us learn from these men, how evil Patriarchy is.  If you study Jones & Icke, you will see that Patriarchy is demonic.

 
David Icke Newsletter Preview 

STEALING THE WORLD ...

COUNTRY BY COUNTRY

Jacob Rothschild, Evelyn de Rothschild and their bloodline clan

The David Icke Newsletter Goes Out On Sunday

Another consequence of this was the transfer of land from the ownership of the state to a 'World Conservation Bank' (WCB), now operating under a different name, which was proposed by a Rothschild at the Fourth World Wilderness Conference in Colorado in 1987. This was another aspect of the plan called Agenda 21 that aims to remove humans from most parts of the world, cull billions from the population, and house the rest in high-rise cities awash with surveillance and control. The World Conservation Bank was nothing to do with helping desperate countries and everything to do with a land-grab for Agenda 21.
George W Hunt, an accountant and investment consultant, was an official host of the World Wilderness Conference and he had been researching some of the 'conspiracy theory' information that was beginning to circulate. Hunt told Moneychanger magazine that the World Conservation Bank was designed as a world central bank to steal more land while claiming it was being done to reduce debt and 'help the environment'. Two very familiar names also came up. George Hunt said:
'... the banker Edmond de Rothschild was at the meeting for six days. Edmond de Rothschild was personally conducting the monetary matters and creation of this World Conservation Bank, in the company of Michael Sweatman of the Royal Bank of Canada. Those two were like Siamese twins, and that's why I say that it appears they were running at least the money side of this conference and I would say the conference was primarily to get money. Also, David Rockefeller (of Chase Manhattan Bank) was there and gave a speech on Sunday ...'
The scam was to transfer the debts from the Third World countries to the World Conservation Bank and, in return, those countries would hand over land. Any other organisation that took over the WCB would inherit ownership of vast tracts of the Earth. A fact sheet published by the Secretariat of the Wilderness Conference said:
'...plans for the WCB propose that it act as an intermediary between certain developing countries and multilateral or private banks to transfer a specific debt to the WCB, thus substituting an existing "doubtful debt" in the bank's books for a new loan to the WCB. In return for having been relieved of its debt obligation, the debtor country would transfer to the WCB natural resource assets of "equivalent value".'
George Hunt delivered a written protest to David Rockefeller via his bodyguard, Hunt says that he received a warning from Rockefeller's office saying that: 'I'd better stay out of politicking or I'd regret it.' These are nice people. The World Conservation Bank morphed into the 'Global Environment Facility' and it is doing precisely what Rothschild and Rockefeller proposed.